The Refuge of the Toads

[comhcinc]

You didn't answer my question. I didn't what would you do in the current situation. I am asking what it will take for you to want us to invade and take over managing the area?

Also I am completely capable of being concern about multiple things at the same time. There are zero military solutions in our country.

[Clarence]

You didn't answer my question. I didn't what would you do in the current situation. I am asking what it will take for you to want us to invade and take over managing the area?

Also I am completely capable of being concern about multiple things at the same time. There are zero military solutions in our country.

"Invade and take over managing the area"?
ISIL kicks everyones ass (including Russia) , deposes Assad,and adds Syria to the Caliphate.
And even then I'd recommend installing a government that at least 2 of the three big power blocks (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran) could agree on and getting the fuck out.

Literally NOTHING ELSE (even up to genocide) would have me recommend more than my evacuation idea.

If we go to the middle east, we have to RUN the MIDDLE EAST precisely as if we are colonialists. WE have to provide the fear and the law and the order and the money and the lives (of our soldiers) and the brains of our engineers (to rebuild the place).

WHAT PRECISELY is in such a thing for ME?!
How do I, as a US citizen, benefit from America basically running a large part of the middle east?

And of course this isn't going to happen, because we'd either have to strike a deal with Russia or fight them as they have a base in Syria.
Plus , occupying Syria means that many other countries in the ME would unite against us to drive us out.
Even if we avoided WW3 with Russia or China, it would still result in a war or (at minimum) an insurgency that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a cake walk.
Why does any sane person want the US to get mixed up in this?

[comhcinc]

Thanks. Really that was a straight answer and I can respect it.

As to why I would want to do this it's straight up a saving innocent lives thing to me. In total somewhere between 250000 and 400000 lives have been lost in the last 5 years. Between that and this kids have to live in a constant state of war is just too much for me.

And btw I completely agree it would be a huge shit hole to get more involved in. I'm aware that we would be stepping on Russia's toes but I honestly think Putin is full of a lot of hot air and if offered an out that saves face he would take it. I also think we could use this as a gain with Iran. They are not happy with the situation at all and we could gain some trust by letting them lead the occupation.

See while I admit there is an emotional element in this for me I am also aware of the situation.

[Clarence]

Thanks. Really that was a straight answer and I can respect it.

As to why I would want to do this it's straight up a saving innocent lives thing to me. In total somewhere between 250000 and 400000 lives have been lost in the last 5 years. Between that and this kids have to live in a constant state of war is just too much for me.

And btw I completely agree it would be a huge shit hole to get more involved in. I'm aware that we would be stepping on Russia's toes but I honestly think Putin is full of a lot of hot air and if offered an out that saves face he would take it. I also think we could use this as a gain with Iran. They are not happy with the situation at all and we could gain some trust by letting them lead the occupation.

See while I admit there is an emotional element in this for me I am also aware of the situation.

A. We'd be more than 'stepping on Russian Toes'. This is very much a 'warm water port' type thing with Russia. They consider their base there to be strategically important and they wouldn't give it up for nothing.

B. You talk about saving innocent lives. But why are the lives of Syrians any more important than those of some african kids who've had to face MULTI GENERATIONAL long warfare often accompanied by atrocities and starvation? What about those poor souls in North Korea being punished for something their grandfather or father did and living off rats (some say human flesh in isolated cases) and being beaten/humiliated daily in camps that are almost as bad as the death camps in Nazi Germany? Why did we ever let that horrid regime (which threatens SK , Japan , and the US troops in that area as well) get nukes to begin with?

C. You say there is no military solution in America. The way our current leader (and his assumed lady successor) are basically waging war on members of the armed services I'm no longer sure about that. And that's not counting all this divisiveness. Like I said, look for downright political violence against the US Government if there is no third party by 2020 or 2024 at the very latest. The current political system is too concerned with graft, greed, and other countries to properly run its own.

[Keating]

So what is your level of too much? Not being rhetorical. I am honestly interest of how much shit has to happen before you are willing to intervene?

For me it's now. It's been enough. Oh and yes I know it's a shit show and there are no good guys there. I understand how hard this is, I don't believe that can be used as excuse anymore.

I could take your moral posturing more seriously if you weren't considering rewarding one of the people most responsible for the current shit show in Syria with your vote.

I'm also pissed at the Guardian, who has been trying to emotionally blackmail the Australian government into shutting down our offshore detention centres. Part of the reason the government stopped allowing the media access is because detainees would regularly self harm for the purpose of playing to emotions that the media would convey to the Australian public, and therefore be more likely to gain entry to Australia. It is fact that self harm incidents have dramatically declined since the government started preventing journalists from access to detention centres.

I'm not saying there are any easy solutions, but I'm fucking sick of bleeding hearts trying to bully people to "do the right thing", when they have no evidence that acting in the way they want would actually improve things long term. I'm certainly not convinced that there's anything that could be done by the United States in Syria that would actually improve the situation. This seems to be the classic Yes, Minister politician fallacy: Something must be done! This is something. Therefore we must do this.

This whole mess started because of the belief that removing a known evil would necessarily lead to the greater good.

[comhcinc]

Thanks. Really that was a straight answer and I can respect it.

As to why I would want to do this it's straight up a saving innocent lives thing to me. In total somewhere between 250000 and 400000 lives have been lost in the last 5 years. Between that and this kids have to live in a constant state of war is just too much for me.

And btw I completely agree it would be a huge shit hole to get more involved in. I'm aware that we would be stepping on Russia's toes but I honestly think Putin is full of a lot of hot air and if offered an out that saves face he would take it. I also think we could use this as a gain with Iran. They are not happy with the situation at all and we could gain some trust by letting them lead the occupation.

See while I admit there is an emotional element in this for me I am also aware of the situation.

A. We'd be more than 'stepping on Russian Toes'. This is very much a 'warm water port' type thing with Russia. They consider their base there to be strategically important and they wouldn't give it up for nothing.

B. You talk about saving innocent lives. But why are the lives of Syrians any more important than those of some african kids who've had to face MULTI GENERATIONAL long warfare often accompanied by atrocities and starvation? What about those poor souls in North Korea being punished for something their grandfather or father did and living off rats (some say human flesh in isolated cases) and being beaten/humiliated daily in camps that are almost as bad as the death camps in Nazi Germany? Why did we ever let that horrid regime (which threatens SK , Japan , and the US troops in that area as well) get nukes to begin with?

C. You say there is no military solution in America. The way our current leader (and his assumed lady successor) are basically waging war on members of the armed services I'm no longer sure about that. And that's not counting all this divisiveness. Like I said, look for downright political violence against the US Government if there is no third party by 2020 or 2024 at the very latest. The current political system is too concerned with graft, greed, and other countries to properly run its own.

A Like I said I think Putin doesn't walk the walk as much as he talks the talk. Also Let them have half the country What do fuck do I care?

B. That isn't going to work on me. Fact of life that you have to look at situations and make tough decisions. At the moment the people most at risk are the people living in Syria where they are in an active warzone. Meaning that at any point it's likely that the area where that are staying will be attack by soldiers, or missiles, or rockets.

C. There is no military solution in America because that is plainly unconstitutional.

[Scented Nectar]

Hey there. I'm too busy to do much but vanity search myself here now with NMS and all, so what's this about a full url thing? And is some advice wanted? Any chance I have to talk nonstop about it is welcome, so ask away!

I've heard of PMS, but that NMS is new to me.

Omg, some of the planets are beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No! They're sexist! Just like the stars.

Instead of PREmenstrual syndrome, it's NOmenstrual syndrome. I'm an old fuck now and no longer get periods. I'm not sure though whether or not these fucking sweat attacks a dozen times a day are worth it though. I used to not mind at first, but really, enough is enough.

Sexist stars? No, it's me who's sexist. I'm objectifying them by calling them beautiful. They are victims who have suffered terribly under the oppression of my complements, and they deserve patreon money, sympathy, preferential hiring quotas, and lots of attention.

[Clarence]

Thanks. Really that was a straight answer and I can respect it.

As to why I would want to do this it's straight up a saving innocent lives thing to me. In total somewhere between 250000 and 400000 lives have been lost in the last 5 years. Between that and this kids have to live in a constant state of war is just too much for me.

And btw I completely agree it would be a huge shit hole to get more involved in. I'm aware that we would be stepping on Russia's toes but I honestly think Putin is full of a lot of hot air and if offered an out that saves face he would take it. I also think we could use this as a gain with Iran. They are not happy with the situation at all and we could gain some trust by letting them lead the occupation.

See while I admit there is an emotional element in this for me I am also aware of the situation.

A. We'd be more than 'stepping on Russian Toes'. This is very much a 'warm water port' type thing with Russia. They consider their base there to be strategically important and they wouldn't give it up for nothing.

B. You talk about saving innocent lives. But why are the lives of Syrians any more important than those of some african kids who've had to face MULTI GENERATIONAL long warfare often accompanied by atrocities and starvation? What about those poor souls in North Korea being punished for something their grandfather or father did and living off rats (some say human flesh in isolated cases) and being beaten/humiliated daily in camps that are almost as bad as the death camps in Nazi Germany? Why did we ever let that horrid regime (which threatens SK , Japan , and the US troops in that area as well) get nukes to begin with?

C. You say there is no military solution in America. The way our current leader (and his assumed lady successor) are basically waging war on members of the armed services I'm no longer sure about that. And that's not counting all this divisiveness. Like I said, look for downright political violence against the US Government if there is no third party by 2020 or 2024 at the very latest. The current political system is too concerned with graft, greed, and other countries to properly run its own.

A Like I said I think Putin doesn't walk the walk as much as he talks the talk. Also Let them have half the country What do fuck do I care?

B. That isn't going to work on me. Fact of life that you have to look at situations and make tough decisions. At the moment the people most at risk are the people living in Syria where they are in an active warzone. Meaning that at any point it's likely that the area where that are staying will be attack by soldiers, or missiles, or rockets.

C. There is no military solution in America because that is plainly unconstitutional.

The current political regime in the USA is post-Constitutional (Despite lip service MOST of the time) so try again. Why shouldn't the armed services have some say over their government esp when it is busy WAGING WAR AGAINST THEM?

Do I really need to show you the changes to military law and policy that have often made sexual assault trials Kangaroo courts?
Why aren't you ashamed of this?
Why aren't you freaking angry?
What is wrong with you? You care more about people in a country you never even lived in or probably set foot in then you do about people in our own country. At least, that is how it seems to me.

[comhcinc]

So what is your level of too much? Not being rhetorical. I am honestly interest of how much shit has to happen before you are willing to intervene?

For me it's now. It's been enough. Oh and yes I know it's a shit show and there are no good guys there. I understand how hard this is, I don't believe that can be used as excuse anymore.

I could take your moral posturing more seriously if you weren't considering rewarding one of the people most responsible for the current shit show in Syria with your vote.

I'm also pissed at the Guardian, who has been trying to emotionally blackmail the Australian government into shutting down our offshore detention centres. Part of the reason the government stopped allowing the media access is because detainees would regularly self harm for the purpose of playing to emotions that the media would convey to the Australian public, and therefore be more likely to gain entry to Australia. It is fact that self harm incidents have dramatically declined since the government started preventing journalists from access to detention centres.

I'm not saying there are any easy solutions, but I'm fucking sick of bleeding hearts trying to bully people to "do the right thing", when they have no evidence that acting in the way they want would actually improve things long term. I'm certainly not convinced that there's anything that could be done by the United States in Syria that would actually improve the situation. This seems to be the classic Yes, Minister politician fallacy: Something must be done! This is something. Therefore we must do this.

This whole mess started because of the belief that removing a known evil would necessarily lead to the greater good.

I could give a fuck about how you take my "moral posturing". I saw a story, it really effected me, and I made some comments about it online.

Also in the primary I voted for Sanders and I am most likely going to vote for Johnson but I don't have to make my mind up yet and I am not going to. I am not a single issue voter and I am happy to admit that in the past Clinton has been just retarded when it comes to Syria.


Your beef with the guardian is not a beef with me. That kid in the picture I posted did not self rocket attack.

When I say "we" I don't mean just the US (as I pointed out in a post up page) but I agree it's complicated. I disagree that nothing can be done. That is the first time anyone has ever called me a bleeding heart.

[Scented Nectar]

<snip>
Haven't the foggiest idea how you might integrate some of those aspects into a "sea filled planet", but it might be kind of cool if you did so. Bit of an inside joke, kind of like "Rayshul's Perfection" planet, and the flower you were thinking of as an emblem for it. :-)

But, somewhat apropos of which, I had been reading On Stormy Seas - written, as it happens, by an old aquaintance - that described the voyages of discovery by Captain George Vancouver, and which you might be interested in. ....

The Korvax are the scientist race. The other two are traders and warriors. The Korvax would definitely be the ones most suited to the definition of cybernetics by both the common 'robot' definition and the one above. They are not a lifeform but an electronic shell (maybe they are somewhere remote? or maybe they are secretly the ancient Atlas race? who knows, don't change that Bat-channel!), so both robots and understanders/definers of systems. Anyways, if I can find a sea filled planet in a Korvax-run solar system, I will name it "Stormy Seas of Steersman". :)

Cool. :handgestures-thumbupright: :flags-canada: :-)

But, somewhat apropos of the game itself, a somewhat amusing, though equally disconcerting, tweet from Dave Rubin:

Maybe you can take some consolation or satisfaction from that in knowing you're unlikely to be running into any other players who are slavish devotees of Jezebel. Though I kind of agree with their general premise that "man" being a definition for both a male member of the human species as well as the species tends to deprecate the contributions of women - part of my objection, no more than a quibble really, with Bronowski's book and documentary titled "The Ascent of Man". But I haven't noticed Jezebel or any other "feminist" leaping to the fore to accept blame for women in general as in the "man's inhumanity to man" for their no doubt trivial contributions to that. Methinks they doth protest too much.

I like it that the feminists don't like NMS. If they liked it, I'd have to expect something's wrong with the game.

The "restore point saved" thing has what looks like a man's symbol, sort of what you'd expect on a bathroom door, which makes me smile every time thinking about how that must upset the perpetually offended crowd.

Separate from that, is something which cracks me up hilariously every time I see it in the game - first with other people's streams, and now in my own gameplay too - when it tells me I just learned one of the languages' words for "docking". I go totally Beavis and Butthead when I see that one. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking "The act of placing the head of ones penis inside the foreskin of another's penis." It's like, does anyone actually get off on that? Where's the stimulation/motion? What on earth? Why do that? Who came up with this fetish and couldn't they think of anything better? It was probably somewhere here on the Pit that I first heard of the term. :lol:

[comhcinc]

The current political regime in the USA is post-Constitutional (Despite lip service MOST of the time) so try again.

No.

Why shouldn't the armed services have some say over their government esp when it is busy WAGING WAR AGAINST THEM?

It's called voting and they are allowed to do it.

Do I really need to show you the changes to military law and policy that have often made sexual assault trials Kangaroo courts?

Yes

Why aren't you ashamed of this?

Why would I be ashamed of something someone else has done?

Why aren't you freaking angry?

Most people would ask why am freaking angry so much.

What is wrong with you?

https://d1sui4xqepm0ps.cloudfront.net/c ... /diabeetus

You care more about people in a country you never even lived in or probably set foot in then you do about people in our own country. At least, that is how it seems to me.

Well I don't but I know of zero children in this country in active war zones who risk being blown up by missiles for fuck all.

[Keating]

But that's exactly my point and what I object to. It's not 'you' so much, as the media outlets who choose to publish that picture of that child to cause that exact emotional response in you. That's the emotional manipulation I'm objecting too. The exact same thing was done with that kid that drown on Turkish shores about a year ago. It was published and pushed for the exact reason of limiting the political options to deal with mass migration, regardless of whether those options were best long term or not. The pictures of children hurt who would push political action in another direction do not get airtime.

[comhcinc]

My daughter just had a bad dream and I do care about her more than the rest of you.

So I will speak at everyone tomorrow.

Later you glorious fuckers.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Sunder]

For the boatsman's edificiation: The fact that "man" is used to mean both "all of humanity" and "a male" is an accident of etymology. It originally meant only one of those things. Humans were men, males were wermen, females were wifmen.

[paddybrown]

Is this basically a precog account of Elyse's future? Sure sounds like one.

If anyone wants to support her legal fund (or what-have-you) there is a handy URL:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016081 ... c8933c.jpg

It's funny how it always comes down to the same outcome. It used to be "women are weak and helpless and basically children, therefore men must protect them and give them stuff and not say anything to upset them and not hold them to the same level of personal responsibility". Now it's "women have been oppressed by being considered weak and helpless and basically children, therefore men must make it up to them by protecting them and giving them stuff and not saying anything to upset them and not holding them to the same level of personal responsibility".

I'm coming to the conclusion is that the entire history of gender politics, going back centuries, is women's ever-evolving rationale for why YOU OWE ME.

[Sunder]

"Gawker.com to End Operations Next Week

After nearly fourteen years of operation, Gawker.com will be shutting down next week. The decision to close Gawker comes days after Univision successfully bid $135 million for Gawker Media’s six other websites, and four months after the Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel revealed his clandestine legal campaign against the company."

http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-ope ... 1785455712

:lol:

Downsides:
-Just the main Gawker site is going down. Subsidiaries keep going.
-Most of the sentient ass pimples who work there are just doing the Catholic priest shuffle and will continue to violate the corpse of journalism at other sites owned by Univision rather than getting shitcanned as they deserve.
-Nick Denton still gets money out of this deal.

[feathers]

Can we just invade Syria please? I understand it's a complicated shit mess that will take a couple of decades for us to get out of but it seems to me we have reach the point that it's necessary.

Are you volunteering for a job of going house to house, kicking in doors, and deciding who are good guys and who aren't? When you don't speak the language.
If there ever was a time to prove that the UN is a useful entity, this is the time.

Yes, they could for example have the human rights situation in Syria assessed by a Saudi from the Human Rights Council. Sounds great!

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

But that's exactly my point and what I object to. It's not 'you' so much, as the media outlets who choose to publish that picture of that child to cause that exact emotional response in you. That's the emotional manipulation I'm objecting too. The exact same thing was done with that kid that drown on Turkish shores about a year ago. It was published and pushed for the exact reason of limiting the political options to deal with mass migration, regardless of whether those options were best long term or not. The pictures of children hurt who would push political action in another direction do not get airtime.

Fuckers did the same thing at Auschwitz and Dachau. Blatent manipulation for bleeding hearts. They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!

download.jpg

(3.36 KiB) Downloaded 236 times

[Keating]

Hey if it was being done consistently, like maybe some attention being given to the 10,000 boys that Clarence posted about, then I wouldn't mind. As it is, it's blatantly political when, as I said, only stories that manipulate political action in a certain direction get any traction.

[Shatterface]

Most likely 'Da Joos done it' ;)

http://bible.motifake.com/image/demotiv ... 772950.jpg

I thought he did a Game of Thrones, and died in the middle.

The Ginger Witch brought him back.

[Shatterface]

If anyone wants to support her legal fund (or what-have-you) there is a handy URL:
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016081 ... c8933c.jpg

Dating men for free is slave labour.

Maybe she could charge more if she didn't accuse all her clients of rape.

[feathers]

Given what happened with Iraq, I'd say it was pretty damn incumbent on any prospective intercessionary force to have a well thought out plan on what happens after the (presumably successful) invasion. Otherwise, people should stay the fuck out of it.

I agree that there needs to be a plan in place but I also believe that after five years of this shit we (and by we I mean the civilised world) need to put an end to it.

Any strategically sane plan needs to start with cutting off the supply lines that feed the conflict. I'm afraid Moscow and Riyadh need to go first.

http://www.welt.de/img/politik/crop1005 ... -RANGE.jpg

[feathers]

Are you talking about the crap that happened while we were there? Or the power vacuum that allowed Isis to grow to the size of Belgium and take over about 60% of the Iraqi & Syrian oil fields?

If IS is the size of Belgium, it stands to reason that Germany should overrun it. They have vielfache Erfahrung with that.

[Kirbmarc]

It was concerning bigfoot, which is my favorite spectator sport. It's good hunting, especially those creationists who believe they are the nephilim.

Ha. Thank you. I have to say I've never really researched Bigfoot that much. It just plainly doesn't interest me.

[feathers]

[youtube][/youtube]

Hmm, there are disadvantages of the YT preview being visible now.

[Oglebart]

Fuckng hell, she's up on the stage for nearly 50 minutes! I watched the first 3 and skipped through. I guess people have told her she was funny before, it's absolutely excruciating.

[feathers]

So long as Syria remains a total shitshow here is the VERY MOST action I could contemplate:
A. We don't fuck with Assad. Russia has a legitimate interest in that area.

Russians have a legitimate interest in Russia and nowhere else, ever, any more.

[feathers]

Instead of PREmenstrual syndrome, it's NOmenstrual syndrome. I'm an old fuck now and no longer get periods.

Ohh, poor girl, here are some:
. . . . . . .

that was cheesy, wasn't it?

[feathers]

Fuckers did the same thing at Auschwitz and Dachau. Blatent manipulation for bleeding hearts. They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!

Even worse, our Jews got their tickets for free and still complain, complain, complain!

[Shatterface]

I've made similar points to this elsewhere (I've called it 'white on white racism') but Kenan Malik does a good job:

Echoes from the past the racial view of class

I am publishing through August on Pandaemonium a series of extracts from my books on the theme of historical fears of the masses and of democracy. This second extract (the first is here), from The Meaning of Race, is not about democracy as such but about how the Victorian elite saw class in racial terms (I have not included full references here, but they are in the book). When I wrote The Meaning of Race, I wanted to challenge conventional ways of thinking about the historical roots of racial ideas, and to demonstrate how much of racial thinking originated not in the context of perceptions of non-Europeans but to a large extent at home out of the relationship between the elite and the masses. And that is what makes this material important in thinking about contemporary discussions of the working class. Today, elite views of the working class are rarely racialized, at least in an overt fashion. Yet, many of the themes, especially about the character of the ‘unrespectable’ working class, remain, though they necessarily have to be expressed in a different language. What is of interest here is to understand what has changed as well as what remains the same in thinking about democracy and the working class.

Today, the concept of race is so intertwined with the idea of ‘colour’ that it is often difficult to comprehend the Victorian notion of race. For the Victorians, race was a description of social distinction, not of colour differences. Indeed, the view of non-Europeans as an inferior race was but an extension of the already existing view of the working class at home and took a considerable time to be established as the normative view. Douglas Lorimer’s study of Colour, Class and the Victorians, provides considerable evidence that until the middle of century black people were treated according to their social status rather than the colour of their skin:

Like their eighteenth-century forebears, the mid-Victorians accepted an individual black according to his ability to conform to English social conventions. A dark complexion did not inevitably signify lowly social status… In spite of theories claiming the Negro was inferior, the variable conduct of the English at this time showed that these racist assumptions had not sufficient support to influence patterns of behaviour. In the absence o any consensus over the significance of racial differences, mid-Victorians simply treated each individual black according to their evaluation of his social standing.

As the idea of the permanence of social hierarchy took hold within liberal circles, however, commentators became increasingly sceptical about the idea of blacks aspiring to high social status. As a result, observes Lorimer, ‘the conventional norms about correct bearing towards one’s social inferiors, whether black or white, were extended to include all blacks regardless of an individual’s character or background.’…

Mid-Victorian perceptions of colour and class are well illustrated by the debate on the relationship between American slavery and the English factory system. When it was published in 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (subtitled Life Among the Lowly) created a considerable furore in Britain, because of the comparison it drew between American slaves and English workers. In the novel, slave-owner Augustine St Clare justifies slavery on the grounds that the condition of his slaves is no worse than that of factory operatives in England:

Look at the high and the low, all the world over, and it is the same story; the lower classes used up, body, soul, and spirit, for the good of the upper. It is so in England; it is so everywhere; and yet all Christendom stands aghast, with virtuous indignation, because we do the thing in a slightly different shape from what they do it.

English commentators angrily rejected the comparison at the time, arguing that slavery was a denial of human rights and morally reprehensible whereas the exploitation of workers through the factory system was an unexceptional fact of life. An article in British Mother’s Magazine argued that though both American slaves and British paupers lived in a state of degradation, the slave’s condition was an enforced one whereas the condition of the English poor was ‘to a large extent their own fault’. Another writer argued that if American slaves truly lived in the same condition as English workers, then slavery would be defensible, Few thought that blacks should be treated differently from white labourers…

https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... -of-class/

[Kirbmarc]

So long as Syria remains a total shitshow here is the VERY MOST action I could contemplate:
A. We don't fuck with Assad. Russia has a legitimate interest in that area.
B. We don't support or arm ANYONE. Esp not 'insurgents'.
C. We can bomb ISIL directly or we can let Russia do it. Believe it or not, they were fighting ISIL too. Some of our fucking "allies' have turned out to be ISIL or otherwise extreme anti-US muslim groups. This is fucking obscene.
D. We go in there and establish a military perimeter and a fleet to EVACUATE as many CIVILIANS (not involved in the war, mostly old men, young boys, women, girls) as possible. We let everyone know we are going to do this and then we do it, and then we LEAVE.
Problem is then we have to resettle them somewhere, and I'd rather it not be HERE , since even noncombatants in that area tend to be fundamentalist Muslim.

E. We (the entire West, not that just the US) gradually disentangle ourselves from deadly "alliances" with Muslim supremacist theocracies like Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States. And we need to stop licking Recep Erdogan's boots. If he keeps doing what he's doing he needs to be booted off NATO, and the EU needs to rescind all ties with his government.

Yes, this requires a very different oil policy, and reopening diplomatic channels with Russia and Iran. They're the lesser of two evils right now: Putin at least is never going to pay Russian supremacists to spread ideas of a Russian supremacist government in the West, and Iran is too busy fighting their local wars to care about "taking over the West". Of course this needs to be done carefully, from a position of strength, not by crawling on our bellies. We also need to make it clear to them that this is a temporary agreement based on mutual interest, not an alliance. In order to come to this agreement we'll probably need to come to a compromise about the oil market.

It wouldn't hurt to try and develop ways to be less dependent on Middle East oil. Fracking, nuclear reactors and the like.

F. We expel all Muslim supremacist, foreign-paid preachers by our countries and cut their funding. We ban religious courts. We also create mandatory classes which teach the values of liberal democracy in our schools, and we make it mandatory for people to have a clean record, a job and a working knowledge of the local language to stay in our countries as immigrants. We make quotas for immigration and strict requirements for citizenship (including not having attended anti-democratic rallies, and explicitly accepting the rules of liberal democracy).

G. IF we want to intervene (and that's a big IF) we need to do it directly, with no proxies, and accept a relatively high number of casualties on our side (5000-8000). Hopefully we need to do it with some kind of legal international recognition, to show that we're there to bring order to the area, not to stay. We need to have a clear goal (i.e. getting rid of the Islamic State as soon as possible) and focus all of our attention and military strength in that area ONLY on that goal. Once the Islamic State is taken care of we need to pull out quickly and let Assad back in power. He's the lesser evil in the area. All the "rebels" are Sunni Muslim supremacists, and other than him, Russia and Iran (and other Shia Muslims) the only ones who are fighting the Sunni Muslim supremacists are the Kurds, who are doing it for their own reasons. I think that Assad and the Kurds can come to a reasonable compromise.

Assad isn't a "good guy", but at least he's pragmatic enough to accept an autonomous Kurd region in the area as long as they help him keep the Sunni Muslim supremacist in line. The Russians and Iran wouldn't mind too much because their real enemies are the Saudis and the other petro-states.

I'm no fan of Putin's or Assad's, and even less so of the Iranian regime, but right now in Syria they're the lesser of two evils, because they mostly stick to their own countries instead of spreading their authoritarian ideas abroad.

So when do we invade North Korea? They only have a few nukes. And they've held whole families in what are basically death camps for 40 or 50 in some cases. I actually consider a nuclear armed nutty North Korean leader to be the single greatest danger to the US or its allies , but we've let them fester because it would cost us something to either fight them or we'd have to kowtow a bit from our stupid pride to make a deal with China to reign them in.

Nobody really wants to fight North Korea, not because they're powerful, but because once you've defeated them you're left with a useless country with no resources, no real industry to speak of, widespread famines and a population of shell-shocked, brainwashed drones. North Korea is an army with a country, not a country with an army. They don't really want to attack the US, either. Every time they've launched a missile it's because South Korea and the US have organized military operations at their borders.

It's all theatre: North Koreans know that if they really started a war they'd be history in a month. Our real beef there is with China. We flex their muscles at North Korea to show China that we're still there and we're never giving up South Korea or Taiwan. And China lets North Korea run loose to make us known that they won't give up anytime soon. Nobody really gives a shit about North Korea. They're proxies for China, and both we and the Chinese know it.

And what about our own country? You know Hillary's election means more continuation of Obama's Unconstitutional Drone Hit Lists. Probably more hijinks in the use and abuse of the IRS against her political enemies. Continued feminist control of education policies and more attacks on the rights of armed service members to fair trials. More open borders. More trade pacts that don't take AMerican workers into account. Possible war with Russia as there's never been a single Neocon foreign policy proscription she seems to have ever opposed.

Hillary Clinton will never start a war with Russia. Nobody is THAT stupid. She will probably bungle any diplomatic discussion with them, though.

[feathers]

E. We (the entire West, not that just the US) gradually disentangle ourselves from deadly "alliances" with Muslim supremacist theocracies like Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States. And we need to stop licking Recep Erdogan's boots. If he keeps doing what he's doing he needs to be booted off NATO, and the EU needs to rescind all ties with his government.

If we throw them out of NATO, they'd find a warm welcome in Russia's bosom - we'd by jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

[Steersman]

E. We (the entire West, not that just the US) gradually disentangle ourselves from deadly "alliances" with Muslim supremacist theocracies like Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States. And we need to stop licking Recep Erdogan's boots. If he keeps doing what he's doing he needs to be booted off NATO, and the EU needs to rescind all ties with his government.

If we throw them out of NATO, they'd find a warm welcome in Russia's bosom - we'd by jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Seems Turkey and Russia have been at each other's throats, at least partially over religion, for the last several hundred years. I rather doubt they'll become bosom buddies any time soon.

[Steersman]

So long as Syria remains a total shitshow here is the VERY MOST action I could contemplate:
A. We don't fuck with Assad. Russia has a legitimate interest in that area. ....
Problem is then we have to resettle them somewhere, and I'd rather it not be HERE , since even noncombatants in that area tend to be fundamentalist Muslim.

<snip>
F. We expel all Muslim supremacist, foreign-paid preachers by our countries and cut their funding. We ban religious courts. We also create mandatory classes which teach the values of liberal democracy in our schools, and we make it mandatory for people to have a clean record, a job and a working knowledge of the local language to stay in our countries as immigrants. We make quotas for immigration and strict requirements for citizenship (including not having attended anti-democratic rallies, and explicitly accepting the rules of liberal democracy). ....

Somewhat apropos of (F), ran across this recently that I thought you might be interested in:

Aug 18, 4:54 PM EDT

ITALY EXPELS ANOTHER IMAM TO PREVENT RADICALIZATION

ROME (AP) -- Italy has expelled a second imam within a week as it seeks to prevent extremist preachers from radicalizing others. ....

Was planning on posting in your Islamists thread, or in Jim's Closet thread - just for his edification of course, but here seems relevant too. But about time more EU - and non-EU - countries started considering the same policy.

[Kirbmarc]

So long as Syria remains a total shitshow here is the VERY MOST action I could contemplate:
A. We don't fuck with Assad. Russia has a legitimate interest in that area.

Russians have a legitimate interest in Russia and nowhere else, ever, any more.

Well, yes, but the same could be said of all countries in the world. Since a world where countries stick to their country isn't a world we'll ever live in, pragmatic compromises need to be made. Right now Assad and Putin (and Iran) are, sadly, the lesser of two evils in Russia, because the alternative is Sunni Muslim supremacist groups trained and financed by our "allies" (Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states).

In an ideal world all countries would be liberal democracies which give local powers to local communities, resolve their issues through diplomatic channels and have defensive, not offensive military policies. [A world of Switzerlands...yes, I'm biased].

That's never going to happen, though, so at least we have to understand who's pragmatic enough to come to a reasonable compromise. And right now in Syria (and I'm stressing in Syria: other conflicts need other solutions) Assad, Putin and Iran are the lesser evil and the ones more willing to compromise.

Does this make Assad's and Putin's regime democratic? Of course not. If the Russian people imprisoned Putin and cut off his head to establish a liberal democracy, and if Syrian people did the same with Assad, again to establish a liberal democracy, I'd say good riddance, and hurrah to them. And Iran is a Shia Muslim theocracy: 'nuff said.

But we can't solve all the problems in the world. Putin has many Russians on his side because he's using Russian nationalism, the Orthodox Church and bread and circuses to keep them on his side, plus he's gotten rid of the widespread corruption of the Eltsin regime (Eltsin could have been charitably described as a vodka bottle with a human attached to it).

He's a dictator supported by the local churches, like Mussolini or Francisco Franco, but he has many Russian people on his side, just like Mussolini or Franco had (well, in the case of Mussolini before he entered in a war he had zero hope to win), and has a strong grip on his country. He has also some idiotic fanboys in the West, but that's a given, since many even here don't give a fuck about liberal democracy and love "strong leaders" (although they'd change their mind if the "strong leader" decided to throw them in prison without a trial).

The people who want to overthrow Assad also don't want a liberal democracy, they want a Sunni Muslim theocracy. Assad is a dictator, but in order to keep the peace and be pragmatic he had established a regime which didn't really privilege Sunnis over Shias or over Yazidis or even Christians, and he cared more about stability and obedience than about Muslim theocracy. He's not a "good guy" by any means, he's another dictator who uses local churches to stay in power, but at least he doesn't really care that much about what women wear or what you believe as long as you don't try to overthrow him.

The Iranian regime is, of course, the worst of the three. They're a Muslim theocracy where Shia Islam is heavily privileged. They're pretty much as bad as the Saudis, except for one thing: they limit their support of terrorism to anti-Israel terrorism and don't spread their ideas through preachers in the West, largely because they represent a minority of Muslims. They're forced to make pragmatic choices and to pick their battles, since they're isolated and not really popular among the majority of Sunni Muslims.

Now let's take a close look at our "allies": Saudi Arabia is basically the Islamic State with money and a diplomatic recognition. The other petro-states (Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, EAU, Bahrein) aren't much better. Turkey under Erdogan is turning into a Sunni Muslim supremacist authoritarian dictatorship. All of these countries have the ties and the money to finance and train Muslim supremacists everywhere, and they do. They aim to control us through economic blackmail (oil) and social blackmail (small little Muslim theocratic communities in the West).

So who are the lesser evil, pragmatically speaking? Assad, Putin and Iran. It's painful to admit it but it's true. Assad and Putin care only about stability in the area. Iranian leaders care about saving their own skins and carrying on with their regime. We can come to a reasonable compromise: we don't invade them or mess with their internal business, they don't mess with our internal business and don't invade our allies. Russian immigrants in the West and Shia Muslims in the West aren't incredibly likely to cause trouble or to want to take over our countries and subvert their laws and principles (in the case of the Shia it's not because they wouldn't like to, but because they're a minority of a minority).

The petro-states and the other Sunni supremacist countries and movements, on the other hand, are fighting to establish their supremacy and control everywhere, through various means. They're expanding, spreading their ideology and causing trouble everywhere.

So if we wish to keep Muslim supremacists under control, to halt their spread and protect our liberal democratic countries and institutions we need to gradually disentangle from our alliances with the petro-states and to open channels with Assad, Putin and Iran (without giving them all they want: we need to make it clear that we deal with them as equals and we don't tolerate foul play on their part).

In life you pretty much always need to pick the lesser evil. We allied ourselves with the Soviets to stop Hitler, not because Stalin was much better than Hitler, but because Hitler was invading Russia and Stalin helped us crush him. We need to find a way to stop Muslim supremacists, and if this means some kind of deal with Putin or Assad or Iran we need to do it (although we need to be very careful about it, and make it a temporary agreement to open channels, not a stable partnership with harmful concessions).

John Kerry actually had started a gradual process to open channels with Iran and Russia, not to mention an attempt to deal with the Syrian crisis. Hillary Clinton, however, has close ties to the Saudis and is likely to reverse those policies. That's a bad idea.

[Kirbmarc]

So long as Syria remains a total shitshow here is the VERY MOST action I could contemplate:
A. We don't fuck with Assad. Russia has a legitimate interest in that area. ....
Problem is then we have to resettle them somewhere, and I'd rather it not be HERE , since even noncombatants in that area tend to be fundamentalist Muslim.

<snip>
F. We expel all Muslim supremacist, foreign-paid preachers by our countries and cut their funding. We ban religious courts. We also create mandatory classes which teach the values of liberal democracy in our schools, and we make it mandatory for people to have a clean record, a job and a working knowledge of the local language to stay in our countries as immigrants. We make quotas for immigration and strict requirements for citizenship (including not having attended anti-democratic rallies, and explicitly accepting the rules of liberal democracy). ....

Somewhat apropos of (F), ran across this recently that I thought you might be interested in:

Aug 18, 4:54 PM EDT

ITALY EXPELS ANOTHER IMAM TO PREVENT RADICALIZATION

ROME (AP) -- Italy has expelled a second imam within a week as it seeks to prevent extremist preachers from radicalizing others. ....

Was planning on posting in your Islamists thread, or in Jim's Closet thread - just for his edification of course, but here seems relevant too. But about time more EU - and non-EU - countries started considering the same policy.

Good for Italy. That's a sound policy. You need to expel the Muslim supremacist imams, especially if they're foreign-financed, since they're not just preaching religious ideas, they're openly calling for a subversion of liberal democracy and for terrorism. Keep an eye on all the imams for good measure.

Italy in general, for all its flaws, seems to have a good intelligence network when it comes to Muslim terrorism. Better than France, at least, although to be fair this might be because there are far more Muslims, mosques and imams in France than in Italy.

Anyway when you have people who are calling for a takeover of your country that's no longer covered under freedom of religion. It's foreign-financed support for violence and subversion, and is best dealt with by expelling the people who call for those things.

[Steersman]

For the boatsman's edificiation: The fact that "man" is used to mean both "all of humanity" and "a male" is an accident of etymology. It originally meant only one of those things. Humans were men, males were wermen, females were wifmen.

Thanks for the information - seriously.

But the cause for that state of affairs - an accident as you argue - seems somewhat secondary, at least to some people and in some cases, in relation to the perception. Although women might still feel "reasonably" slighted in not having the term for them the same as for the species. As I suggested with my "The Ascent of Man" example, I can see how that might rankle a bit with some women, even if there isn't a lot of justification for it. And it doesn't seem unique to me as suggested by the kerfuffle over words such as "chairman".

In any case, as Billie seems to have given up on threatening to kill kittens whenever someone uses my nym - or he's run out of ready supplies, if you were interested in having a reply, or wanted to ensure that I would see any of your comments about or to me then you're probably safe to use it. :-)

[Hunt]

Good to see Consciousness Razor giving Myers shit in his truly Bensonesque "Negligible" post. In it PZ proves he can be every bit as dense, incoherent and dishonest as the master of the trade (Ophelia, that is). There's so much straw in that post it's hard to really understand who or what Myers is wrestling with. Is he agreeing with Pinker or disagreeing? Damned if I can tell. Apparently he thinks Pinker believes some deaths are "negligible," but a man as intelligent and empathetic as Pinker would surely not take that position. So what the fuck is PZ on about?

[Brive1987]

Long story, but just spent the evening drinking with the staff of an ex-prime minister at their office.

How bizarre.

[Kirbmarc]

E. We (the entire West, not that just the US) gradually disentangle ourselves from deadly "alliances" with Muslim supremacist theocracies like Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States. And we need to stop licking Recep Erdogan's boots. If he keeps doing what he's doing he needs to be booted off NATO, and the EU needs to rescind all ties with his government.

If we throw them out of NATO, they'd find a warm welcome in Russia's bosom - we'd by jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

That's pretty unlikely. Russia supports Iran, while Turkey is supported by the Saudis. Erdogan is demanding way too much out of the EU, who are all too willing to give him what he wants. I'd say let him face the Kurds without our money and weapons, and he'll eventually crawl back with diminished demands.

[Brive1987]

It was concerning bigfoot, which is my favorite spectator sport. It's good hunting, especially those creationists who believe they are the nephilim.

Ha. Thank you. I have to say I've never really researched Bigfoot that much. It just plainly doesn't interest me.

Patterson–Gimlin pace analysis gives me a woody.

[feathers]

Seems Turkey and Russia have been at each other's throats, at least partially over religion, for the last several hundred years. I rather doubt they'll become bosom buddies any time soon.

Strategic/military necessities can make the strangest of alliances.

Without NATO, Turkey is toast for whatever crazed faction from Syria/Iraq/Kurdistan wants to have a go at it. I'm sure Putin will be more than pleased to supply them with Sukhois and rockets that after the conflict, incidentally, remain close to the NATO boundary.

[Keating]

Her Kirbmarc, what do you think of this analysis:

[youtube][/youtube]

[MarcusAu]

Joe Rogan can, and does on occasion, talk the hind proverbial off of a donkey - but I think he manages to be fairly entertaining when speaking with Bobcat Goldthwait about his movie on Bigfoot.

[youtube][/youtube]

[DrokkIt]

[youtube][/youtube]

That is just awful. Really, I felt so sorry for the men (you can hear them chuckling half-heartedly every so often, like well-trained cucks) who sat through this, unable to walk out because of the pointy-faced little harridans sat beside them.

Please, everyone try watching this shit. Did she get paid? Did she get at least free travel/accommodation? I would sue the cunt off that unprepared, talentless piece of shit if I had spent a dollar on what I just watched.

Made it a few minutes in. Insufferable and entitled whining.
Reminds me of how many girls I know think that when men are uncomfortable with talk of menstrual blood it's because they hate women, and not anything to do with it being literally gross.

I would most certainly not drop smug references about my bellend's propensity for smegma into idle chit-chat at work. Because it's unpleasant, not because women hate men*


*even though they all do, right fellas....?

[deLurch]

Because Tigzy, and the rest of us since, have been calling him "shrimp" :lol:

http://imgur.com/ZeqYRSC.jpg

Yeah, he's actually tall.

He's still a shrimp, though.

http://imgur.com/Elwi2DI.jpg

That is one hell of an angle shot.

[feathers]

Good for Italy. That's a sound policy. You need to expel the Muslim supremacist imams, especially if they're foreign-financed, since they're not just preaching religious ideas, they're openly calling for a subversion of liberal democracy and for terrorism. Keep an eye on all the imams for good measure.

I suppose that, unless they can get money from them, the Mafia ain't no friends with the muslims.

[deLurch]

And probably Russia.
Syria is a 'no go' zone for the US, in part because NO ONE THERE IS A GOOD GUY(seriously, LOOK IT UP. Tell me who the GOOD PRO US NON FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIM ALLIES are), and I'm not interested in World War 3.

And here I thought Trump was supposed to be the dangerous one.

So what is your level of too much? Not being rhetorical. I am honestly interest of how much shit has to happen before you are willing to intervene?

For me it's now. It's been enough. Oh and yes I know it's a shit show and there are no good guys there. I understand how hard this is, I don't believe that can be used as excuse anymore.

So what do you expect us to do? Slaughter people until all of the children are safe again? Let's face it. We have our hands full as it is. Time to stop biting off more than we can chew. Perhaps we are better off leaving brutal dictator's in place. At least there will be stability, and the dictators have something to lose if they fuck around outside their country.

[deLurch]

[youtube][/youtube]

[VickyCaramel]

@Kirbmarc

What is missing from your analysis is that Assad is not our enemy, he is the enemy of Israel and some factions in Lebanon.
Iran is also not our enemy, it's Saudi Arabia and Israel's enemy.

Incidentally, if you dig deep, Saudi Arabia was in the news yesterday for bombing hospitals in the Yemen. I am sure that produced bloodied 5 year olds too.

Israel is worthless as an ally, Saudi Arabia has oil. Iran has been a great bogeyman for the US and Syria has been a kicked around like a football. I am not really sure what set of moral principle lead us here.

In short, i am happy to step back and let the Russians sort it out.

[HunnyBunny]

It was concerning bigfoot, which is my favorite spectator sport. It's good hunting, especially those creationists who believe they are the nephilim.

Ha. Thank you. I have to say I've never really researched Bigfoot that much. It just plainly doesn't interest me.

Patterson–Gimlin pace analysis gives me a woody.

A woody? That must be a coded reference to a piece of 4 x 2 - Joos, it always leads to da Joos. This conspiracy stuff is easy :shifty:

[VickyCaramel]

[youtube][/youtube]

Hmm, there are disadvantages of the YT preview being visible now.

I know they live in these bubbles, but you would have thought somebody would have said to her, "What the fuck are you wearing?".

[VickyCaramel]

It was concerning bigfoot, which is my favorite spectator sport. It's good hunting, especially those creationists who believe they are the nephilim.

Ha. Thank you. I have to say I've never really researched Bigfoot that much. It just plainly doesn't interest me.

Patterson–Gimlin pace analysis gives me a woody.

Yeah? At what angle?

[youtube][/youtube]

[dogen]

Because Tigzy, and the rest of us since, have been calling him "shrimp" :lol:

http://imgur.com/ZeqYRSC.jpg

Yeah, he's actually tall.

He's still a shrimp, though.

http://imgur.com/Elwi2DI.jpg

Never thought I'd see a prawn in subfusc!

[Shatterface]

[youtube][/youtube]

Hmm, there are disadvantages of the YT preview being visible now.

I know they live in these bubbles, but you would have thought somebody would have said to her, "What the fuck are you wearing?".

I think this is the effect she was after:

http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/3/d/2/ ... 9428b1.jpg

[MarcusAu]

re: issues with the Left - some have set the date of the rot much earlier than the recent issues with SJWs.

I remember reading Isaac Asimov's comments to the effect that many old school liberals did have issues with the upstarts and johnny-come-latelys in the 1960s (and it's not hard to see why someone would have trouble taking the Yippies seriously).

Anyway - here's an interview with P J O'Rourke who was having a change of heart in the 1970s.

[youtube][/youtube]

Of course this probably has to been seen in the context of what alternatives the Right was offering at the time.

[Kirbmarc]

Her Kirbmarc, what do you think of this analysis:

[.youtube][/youtube]

Thanks for sharing the video. I think that it goes a bit too easy on the Lybian regime, which is described only as "accused" of supporting terrorism when Gaddafi's involvement with the Lockerbie accident were pretty clear, and the author of the video is apparently amazed by the idea that a dictator might provide people with free healthcare to the people who support him as a tool to be popular (probably because he's an American and free healthcare is something unheard of in the US) and he believes Lybian propaganda about a bit too much about the big irrigation system (which never fully materialized and was probably a pipe dream to begin with).

The author of the video also glosses over the Kerry doctrine, which was a US attempt to adapt to the situation in the Middle East through a compromise (by playing a slow game, though).

However the other considerations are pretty much correct. The wars are about petro-dollars and the control of OPEC, but the US are setting themselves up for disaster if they carry on with their alliance with Saudi Arabia and the petro-states and keep doing business as usual with the rest of the world. I believe that the age of the US as the only superpower is coming to an end, but this doesn't necessarily mean a complete collapse of the US as a country. The situation is still fluid.

I'm a dirty "yoorpean", so my main interests are centered on Europe. I care about limiting the damage to European democracies by Muslim supremacists, about protecting liberal democracies in Europe and quite frankly a gradual decline of the US-Saudi partnership, and a substitution of the US unilateral hegemony with a multipolar equilibrium doesn't look like a nightmare to me. Hell the Euro could be one
of the monetary reserves alternative to the dollar, along with maybe even Swiss franc.

The US could and should gradually adapt to the new situation. I don't think that they'll necessarily implode if they heavily restructure their financial and productive system. What is clear is that they can't carry on as they had for long. Russia and especially China are setting up alternative monetary reserves, and in a way even the EU is doing the same thing. Everyone is getting fed up with the US-petrodollar status quo. (Everyone but the US and its client/master states) but people could still buy American products (and they still do)

The problem is that the situation is still fluid and many possible outcomes are possible. Hillary Clinton represents the financial, petro-dollar supported, Saudi friendly interests in the US. She's likely to carry on with business as usual, which means more wars and more Muslim supremacists everywhere. Trump represents the non-financial business interests and the middle-lower classes who don't care about the petro-dollar regime and wish for a more isolationist policy and to focus on business and promotion of local jobs.

Neither candidate is perfect. Hillary is likely to carry on with US interventions which protect the petro-dollar system, while Trump is likely to leave US allies to fend for themselves. Which option is worse depends on where you live. Syrian people would be better off under Trump, but people in the Baltic states probably fear a weakening of US involvement in the area and a growth of Russian influence. The EUS is weak because it doesn't have a coherent international policy.

Who is the lesser evil, then, Trump or Clinton? It depends on where you leave, what are your country's and your personal interests, etc. I happen to think that Trump might be less of a problem for a gradual transition from a "single superpower" model to a "multiple powers" model, which in the long run is inevitable. I could be wrong though.

The most important thing is that with some people you can come to a reasonable compromise. Putin, Assad, the Chinese establishment, India, Germany, France and the UK can come to reasonable compromises with each other or with the US. Some of them would do this easily, for others it's a matter of defining terms, but no one of those countries is completely irrational and lead by ideology in its policies.

Iran veers towards irrationality and ideology, but they're more easy to tame and contain than other ideologues, because they don't have a very wide appeal.

The Sunni Muslim supremacists, sponsored by the petro-countries, are the most irrational and out of control faction. They're a bunch of identitarian authoritarians who have little ties to reality, because they've been living for years protected by the consequences of their actions through Saudi financing and the US looking the other way. It's time that they get knocked down a peg.

[screwtape]

http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/3/d/2/ ... 9428b1.jpg

A still that comes from the end of a sequence that fascinated me as a teenager. One way mirrors in the unisex changing room.

[dogen]

Hey there. I'm too busy to do much but vanity search myself here now with NMS and all, so what's this about a full url thing? And is some advice wanted? Any chance I have to talk nonstop about it is welcome, so ask away!

I've heard of PMS, but that NMS is new to me.

Omg, some of the planets are beautiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No! They're sexist! Just like the stars.

Instead of PREmenstrual syndrome, it's NOmenstrual syndrome. I'm an old fuck now and no longer get periods. I'm not sure though whether or not these fucking sweat attacks a dozen times a day are worth it though. I used to not mind at first, but really, enough is enough.

Sexist stars? No, it's me who's sexist. I'm objectifying them by calling them beautiful. They are victims who have suffered terribly under the oppression of my complements, and they deserve patreon money, sympathy, preferential hiring quotas, and lots of attention.

So, after c. 30 hours of grind, I'm done with NMS. 10^18 star systems -- all different, yet all the same. The game has, in effect, no content whatsoever.

[Service Dog]

[youtube][/youtube]

Hmm, there are disadvantages of the YT preview being visible now.

I know they live in these bubbles, but you would have thought somebody would have said to her, "What the fuck are you wearing?".

That was at the time when Elyse got weight loss surgery on her stomach... and made fishy claims that-- while they were doing the surgery, they found cancer (so the surgery was accidentally non-elective). She gave the Cancer Survivor identity a shot. Shaved her head & seemed content to let people assume she was bald from chemo (she didnt do chemo). Likewise, she sported the showy wig, like the way chemo patients wear jaunty hats & wigs to keep their spirit up. Im pretty-sure she had a cancer fund-raiser.